NETWORK OF TREASON: Cindy Sheehan Backers Officially Support Iraqi Insurgents, Condemn USA

by Richard Poe
Monday, August 22, 2005

7:29 pm Eastern Time

Three radical groups involved in organizing the Cindy Sheehan circus officially support the Islamist insurgency in Iraq, reports syndicated columnist Bob Novak. The groups are Code Pink for Peace, United for Peace & Justice and Veterans for Peace. In an August 20 column, Novak writes:

“Those organizations were represented at a mock “war crimes” trial in Istanbul that on June 27 produced a joint declaration backing the insurgency. Based on the United Nations Charter, it said `the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom.’

“The Istanbul statement also rejected U.S. efforts to leave behind a democratic government in Iraq, asserting: `Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority.'”

Here is the “Final Statement” of the World Tribunal on Iraq which met in Istanbul from June 23-27, 2005. The siege of Crawford began about a month later, on August 6.

by Richard Poe
August 22, 2005 07:29 PM ET

Cross-posted from 08.22.05


25 Responses to “NETWORK OF TREASON: Cindy Sheehan Backers Officially Support Iraqi Insurgents, Condemn USA”


Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. dark900 says:

    From reading this Final Statement of the World Tribunal on Iraq, I am reminded of the old Communist movement that declared America as the “Great Satan”; that America has no right to protect and defend itself; that America can do no right, blah, blah, blah and all sorts of other pro-Communist propaganda.

    The World Tribunal on Iraq, I believe, is nothing more than a pro-terror/anti-American/anti-freedom group that wants America to fail in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. If America loses in Iraq, then America loses in Afghanistan and gives terrorists everywhere a plus. The Middle East would be in chaos if the radical Left got its way with Iraq.

  2. Cato_Maior says:

    This shouldn’t be too shocking for readers of DTN. See FPM’s article of May 2, “SFSU Hosts a Terrorist”, in which this Sheehan shared the floor with Lynne Stewart, Pam Africa, et al. Sheehan was quoted by FPM as repeating the Left’s familiar, shrill talking points:

    “We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!”

  3. Marimba Man says:

    In the Communist Party web site,, it states: “Communist Party, USA: Resolution of Solidarity with the Iraqi Communist Party.” Plus an end of sentence of a resolution that says, “rebuilding from the devastation imposed by U.S. invasion and occupation.”

    Is the Iraqi Communist Party, members or closet members, aiding in the insurgency, IN ANY WAY, and therefore, the KILLING OF AMERICANS? AMERICANS AIDING IN THE KILLING OF AMERICANS?

    Everyone go to NOW! Copy it and save.



  4. motodog says:

    why do all the bloggers, left and right, use out of context quotes to make their stupid, self-reasoned agenda points? Man, this country is like a bad WWF fight. Left, right, whatever. I think the whole country is turning into a bunch of twisted freaks.

  5. motodog says:

    and further, I support that crazy Cindy chick who has the balls to just ask a few questions and rile up the whole country. Maybe we should just kill the messenger tho, and go back to our twisted little blogosphere, where we don’t have to deal with actual family death issues.

    Rave on O looney boys.

  6. motodog says:

    BTW, how do I get on your sacred list of people who think and sometimes even criticize our government? Is there some kind of secret word? Or do I just hang here on this site until one of you paranoid freaks stalks me down and takes my photo?

  7. dark900 says:

    To motodog:

    You mean the same Cindy Sheehan who called Bush an “international terrorist” and blames Bush for “killing her son” instead of blaming the terrorists who shot the bullets at him? Her reaction to her son’s death is on the same lines as Michael Berg’s reaction to his. Michael Berg blamed the death of his son on President Bush, but not the head terrorist in Iraq who did the dirty deed.

    Cindy Sheehan is on the same boat. Tell me, do you want America to lose in Iraq? Have Iraq turn back to another dictatorship that supports international terrorism and has ties to other state sponsors of international terrorism? If you or Cindy Sheehan gets their way with Iraq, Iraq would end up ten times worse than the results of Vietnam.

  8. ralphbprice says:


    I applaud you. You further the conviction of people who have pride in their country and have the courage of their convictions.

    You mention that Cindy asks some tough questions. Might I point out that all these questions have been asked before by the leftist loonies and rightwing anti-Semite cabal?

    You might ask yourself the question, “Who is Cindy Sheehan and what makes her any more sympathetic than the thousands of others who have lost love ones in the war on terror?” Why is she important? Simple, because she parrots the left’s propaganda.

    Having served in Iraq and two tours and having some experience with the war on terror, I can tell you that what is happening there is tough, but something that has to be completed.

    I remind you sir, the military is entirely voluntary. No one is forced to serve. Let me repeat, the military is VOLUNTARY. To infer, as some have, that Casey Sheehan was coerced or brainwashed into doing what he thought was noble is doing him a great disservice.

    War is hell, but those who serve do so for all the right reasons. Please accept their sacrifices in the spirit that would honor them. I have spoken to you with respect and expressed my point of view. If you disagree, that is your right, but please respond with the same respect I have afforded you.

  9. rayjay says:

    ok couple of issues here

    1 – Regarding what groups support Sheehan… i remember american nazi groups came out in support it terry schiavos parents.. does that mean they were nazis?

    2 – When Motodog talks about the spin both from the left and from the right … he is absolutely right.. If you dont think youre being spun… wake up.

    3 – ok heres the deal the whole war was based on the presence of WMDs in Iraq… we have found none.. there appears to not have been any…. tel me how you get around or ignore this fact

    4 – Meanwhile…I am hoping like hell we can make this thing good… else we will have to live with a disaster of our own design…

  10. freedomnow says:

    Motodog needs sedatives and a nice hug…

  11. Cato_Maior says:

    yo, motodog – repeating cliches, lies, and personal attacks against the president is not persuasive.

    Cindy Sheehan is dead wrong (incorrect) here: because this country is in fact run by a Constitution, one full of checks and balances.

    She is illogical here: the Constitution says nothing about impeaching sanitation workers.

    She is in absolute poor taste here: if she refers to the president’s daughters as “little party animals” how much respect does she expect to be extended to (her version) of who her son was? (I say “her version,” because Casey Sheehan was a man and a hero, not a child and a victim, as hard-Left antiwar activists try to portray the KIAs.)

    Cindy Sheehan had her audience with the president. Her war, and the war of those who want nothing less than the degradation and humiliation of the United States, will go on long after the war in Iraq is over…

  12. Happy Ruthy says:

    And the Democrats wonder why they cannot win.

  13. Marimba Man says:

    Has anyone checked out

  14. Walter E. Wallis says:

    When you are working very hard to bring victory to the people who are killing U.S. soldiers, it stretches cred to claim that is patriotic. When you are willing to have this country be defeated just so you can gain political power back, you are demonstrating exactly why Democrats should be swept from power.

  15. Richard Poe says:

    ray jay writes: “Regarding what groups support Sheehan… i remember american nazi groups came out in support it terry schiavos parents.. does that mean they were nazis?”

    Dear ray jay:

    If it is true that Nazi groups supported Terri Schiavo’s right to live, this is the first I’ve heard of it.

    On what grounds did they support her? Nazi ideology opposes the right of disabled persons to live. People in Terri Schiavo’s condition were routinely euthanized in Nazi Germany.

    Oh wait. Are you talking about Bo Gritz and his militia crowd? They are not Nazis, to my knowledge. Granted, a lot of those folks believe that the US government is controlled by a cabal of warmongering Jews, but, well, so do you.

    Bo Gritz and some of his followers may be Jew-haters, but at least they don’t advocate murdering helpless women in their sickbeds. Nazis do advocate murdering sick people. And I guess you do too.

    You are closer to being a Nazi than Bo Gritz.

  16. Richard Poe says:

    ray jay: “…the whole war was based on the presence of WMDs in Iraq…”

    Dear ray jay:

    Lying is a banning offense on this blog, and this business about the alleged “presence” of Iraqi WMDs being the principal justification for ousting Saddam is a lie.

    If you don’t know it’s a lie, and are simply parroting leftist propaganda because you believe it to be true, then you lack the intelligence to post messages on this blog. We do have some standards around here.

    Something tells me your sojourn among us is going to be a short one.

    P.S. Willful disregard of the rules of English grammar, spelling and punctuation is also a banning offense on this blog. We forgive innocent or inadvertent errors, but your consistent failure to capitalize the initial letters of sentences smacks of post-modern impudence.

  17. Richard Poe says:

    motodog writes: “…why do all the bloggers, left and right, use out of context quotes to make their stupid, self-reasoned agenda points? … Left, right, whatever. I think the whole country is turning into a bunch of twisted freaks.”

    Miss Nearing wrote on an earlier thread: “I just don’t understand the near-pathology on the left and the right over Cindy Sheehan. … [T]his all Cindy, all the time obsession by all sides is, well, freaky.”

    Note the similarity between these two statements. Both imply that left and right share equal blame in the promotion of Mother Sheehan. Both use variations of the word “freak” or “freaky.”

    It appears that the Central Committee has issued a new set of talking points.

    Interestingly, these talking points implicitly concede that the Sheehan gambit has backfired. If Mother Sheehan’s cause were as popular as the phony polls and the mass media claim, the leftists would not be trying to split the blame with conservatives. Finger-pointing is a reaction to failure, not success.

    By the way, I encourage all conservatives to use the term “Mother Sheehan.” It perfectly encapsulates this woman’s farcical presumptions to sainthood and martyrdom. Thank you, leftists, for giving us the idea.

  18. cxt says:


    We have terrorists targeting schools and blowing up children and these yahoos have the time and inclination to sit around and hold lengthy (and meaningless) discussions?

    How is history going to judge them? The folks that sat around and pointed fingers while children died?

    When you think about it — this is every bit as bad the UN’s lethal dithering about if the deathtoll in Rwanda was “really” a genocide.

    Only difference is in the scope. The lack of action is chillingly similar.

    Strange, I can’t seem to find any statements from the group expressing their views on SH regimen, dunking live people into vats of acid, throwing people off 3-story bldgs, a little matter of the invasion of Kuwait (ignoring the widespread rape of the women of Kuwait by SH forces).

    Also seems to be a dearth of information on their expressed statements on the genocide in Rwanda.

    Tellingly the USA efforts to stop the genocide in Kosovo and the genocide in Bosnia, where we invaded another nation without UN sanction and deposed a murderous madman ALSO seem to have gone without comment.

    Sloppy logic at best, outright, willing ideological blindness most probably.

  19. Madzionist says:

    Declaring solidarity against America in favor of islamic terrorists in a time of war is one hell of platform for the left and their paleocon brethren.

    Go Cindy! Go Cindy! You go girl! Bring us a Republican super majority in the house for 2006, so we can appoint a Supreme Court which favors our war against islamo terror and rejects Euro trash precedents for judicial rulings.

    By the way, has anyone else noticed that whenever someone begins a statement with the qualifier about how “the rhetoric on both the right and the left is way too inflammatory,” they immediately launch into a Leftist diatribe? Do they think this juvenile psychological tactic will confuse us into believing they are objective, neutral parties looking to take the high road of the debate?

    A message to all you psych 101 moonbats: We know what you’re doing, it doesn’t work, and we want you to stop it already. We see through this childish ruse, and it only serves to strengthen our dislike for you and your objectionable cause.


  20. J. Bargholz says:

    The mostly foreign jihadis terrorizing Iraq do not comprise a “pupular national resistance.” They’re islamo-anarchists trying to destroy Iraqi society. They are roundly detested by the majority of Iraqis.

    I’m sure the writers of the Istanbul Statement would’ve approved of a “law or institution created under the aegis of occupation” if it had established a communist government. One side of the room would’ve, anyway. The islamic side of the room would have then declared war on the communists and both sides would’ve begun an uncharacteristically earnest effort to make the world a better place by annihilating each other.

    The entire statement read like a litany of leftist distortions about the removal of Saddam Hussein.

    It’s interesting that it describes the occupation as an aegis. It was a subconcious slip on the part of its writers. Coalition forces are indeed protecting Iraqis; Ironically, from the very jihadis (“insurgents”) it praises.

  21. rayjay says:

    richard poe
    Lying is a banning offense on this blog, and this business about the alleged “presence�? of Iraqi WMDs being the principal justification for ousting Saddam is a lie

    Youve got to be kidding me… Speech after speech by this administration, Powell before the UN claiming mobile weapons labs.. The repeated claims that Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions regarding disarming…

    Now perhaps this was not the sole reason given… Saddam was a bad man to be sure.. but this was the reason in the forefront, hammered over and over, the Condi’s “mushroom cloud” etc./as why we must invade..

    Meanwhile… I posted in this forum in good faith… your accusations regarding me “lying” because I may disagree with you politically are uncalled for.

    and just what the heck is “post-modern” impudence anyway

  22. truthteller says:

    People are catching on to the tired old “attack the messenger” character assassination Rove technique and it’s failing to distract the way it once did. Bush is too much of a coward to look Cindy Sheehan in the eye and explain the “noble cause” he claims her son died for because it doesn’t exist. He knows it, she knows it, and increasingly the American public knows it.

  23. Moonbat Central » Blog Archive » Sheehan Backlash Grows says:

    […] send Move America Forward a contribution to help it continue its drive to counteract the pro-terrorist left. This entry was posted on […]

  24. freedomnow says:

    Ahhhh the old “I dare you to…” trick from our childhood days.

    Bush has already met Sheehan as a mother. Now as a political activist she wants to meet him again to advance her political agenda. No way!

    Bush didn’t send her son to his death, Casey re-enlisted on his own accord, knowing the full consequences of his actions. Then he volunteered for a dangerous mission that he was told as a mechanic he didn’t have to go on. He felt it was important enough for him to risk his life to defend the civilians of that country.

    That was his belief, if Cindy doesn’t believe the same then that’s OK, but to protest in her son’s name is a betrayal of her son’s wishes. I am not talking about treason here. I talking about a parent who doesn’t respect her adult son’s wishes.

    Let’s say an adult male tells his parents that he is gay. His mother is shocked. The man then dies of Aids and his mother becomes an activist against homosexually in his name. Good parenting means supporting your child, not betraying them.

  25. » Blog Archive » NETWORK OF TREASON: Cindy Sheehan Backers Officially Support Iraqi Insurgents, Condemn USA says:

    […] Cross-posted from 08.22.05 […]

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!